A Single-Center Experience With Percutaneous Interventional Management of Refractory Chylous Ascites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Management of chylous ascites is poorly understood with no management guidelines. We retrospectively reviewed patients treated for chylous ascites at our institution to evaluate efficacy and safety of lipiodol lymphangiography and embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients underwent percutaneous interventional management of chylous ascites (average age 52.5 years, 3 female, 6 post-surgical, 1 pancreatitis) from 2012. All patients underwent lipiodol inguinal lymph node injection. Adjunctive glue embolization was performed if a leak was identified. Data were collected on the cause of chylous ascites, conservative management strategies, procedural details, and success. RESULTS: All patients had chylous ascites refractory to conservative management. Preprocedure lymphoscintigraphy identified a retroperitoneal leak in 6 patients. Seven patients underwent 12 lymphangiogram procedures; 8 were performed at our institution. Lymphangiography identified a leak in 5 patients (71%). Success was achieved in 2 patients (28%) treated at our institution after glue embolization following cannulation of the leaking lymphatic channels and 1 patient (14%) after lymphangiography alone for an overall success rate of 43% (3/7). Two patients (29%) were successfully treated after one procedure. Two patients (29%) unsuccessfully treated at our institution were referred to a specialized center in the United States. No 30 day post procedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, lymphangiography and embolization was a safe, relatively effective and minimally invasive method for treating medically refractory chylous ascites. Complex cases required referral to a specialized institution with resources unavailable at our tertiary care center.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".